Even while Taarabt was in his pomp I’ve always said Buzsaky is the best player at Rangers and the one whose attributes are most transferable to the Premier League, which upset some admirers of Ale Faurlin as well as Taarabt’s fan club.

But even after Saturday I think questions still remain about Buzsaky. Three bad injuries in succession and other periods of inactivity are bound to affect a player.

I doubt even his staunchest critic would deny that Buzsaky is dangerous from set-pieces and can deliver a ball, so in many ways the Wigan game told us nothing we didn’t already know.

The main question is whether Buzsaky has the legs to play consistently in the Premier League and so far that hasn’t been answered. The Wigan game was ideal for him. Faurlin, who I’ve been critical of, looks a great player in matches like that too.

The signs are good though. Buzsaky’s actually getting better and sharper with every game and during games, which is exactly what you’d want to see from someone who needs to recover his sharpness after a long spell of inactivity.

It’s been particularly difficult for Buzsaky, because the odd cameo appearance in which he’s desperate to impress is the worst situation for a player of his type to be in.

He’s a touch player, and those kind of players need games – and confidence.

With that and some match sharpness back, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that Buzsaky isn’t only Premier League class, he’s top half of the Premier League class.

I’ve believed that since he wasn’t even a first-team regular at Plymouth and stand by it. But the centre of a 4-4-2 can be very unforgiving in the top division and tougher tests lie in store for him, that’s for sure.

I’d really like to see him establish himself as a first-team regular, which won’t be easy under a new manager who is urgently looking to strengthen every area of the team apart from goalkeeper – despite being linked with Ben Foster and Heurello Gomes.

It’s a great chance for Buzsaky though, made possible as much by Faurlin’s sad injury as the sacking of Neil Warnock.

In fairness to Warnock, he did initially regard him as a first-team player and planned to make him a key part of the side last season.

But Buzsaky picked up an injury shortly before the opening game, Shaun Derry – who was signed purely as a squad player – started instead and the rest is history.

That said, only a club with more money than sense would have been looking to offload a player like Buzsaky while, as usual, trying to buy half a team during the transfer window – something no-one else does but which at Rangers seems to be accepted as the done thing.

Buzsaky was written off too quickly, and I think the same may be happening with Jay Bothroyd.

I can’t claim to be Bothroyd’s biggest fan, but I would have taken him on a free last summer and think he’s since been a bit unlucky.

Apart from last season, Bothroyd has never been a goalscorer. So getting on his back for not scoring is a complete waste of time.

He isn’t that kind of forward. His strengths are his touch, being at the centre of things, bringing others into play, moving defenders around and so on. He isn’t and never has been what you might call a number one striker.

And like Buzsaky, he’s a touch player who needs games. There’s no point putting him in and taking him out. You either stick with him or ditch him, and I’d be inclined to stick with him.

Part of the reason he was so effective last season was that he played regularly for Cardiff. Their other striker changed repeatedly, but be it alongside Chopra, Bellamy, McCormack or Whittingham, he played.

It’s different for someone like Helguson – once similarly written off and now the blue-eyed boy – as he’s more of a battering-ram type of forward so can be chucked on during a game and expected to do his stuff.

Bothroyd did his job as a lone striker very well earlier in the season, but that job is a thankless one and it’s no coincidence that players in that role are consistently criticised by fans at QPR and elsewhere.

It’s a team role appreciated mainly by the team – not least the attacking midfielder who pops up in acres of space in the penalty area. Few ask how and why he got there or where the opposing centre-backs were.

Helguson is a recent example of that. Kevin Gallen made Rangers tick and was a fine Mark Hughes-type forward but, according to some, slow, overweight and often the weak link in the side.

Bothroyd’s confidence dipped a bit after his time in the firing line and he’s having to work his way back into the swing of things when he’s not a crowd favourite.

Personally I’m not a fan of his attitude, but he’s one of these players who doesn’t respond to being berated, either from the stands or touchline.

He does have a contribution to make and, like most number two-type forwards, that contribution is always more appreciated on the pitch than in the stands.

Proof of that is in the reaction of other players to him.

Think of the QPR players you’d consider to be the best pros at the club and have the best attitude. I imagine the kind of names that come to mind are Derry, Hill and Mackie maybe.

Now think back to last season and those players’ reaction to Taarabt during games.

Yes, they tolerated him and at times marvelled at him. But there were times when their anger at him was obvious. Before his injury, Mackie often looked particularly frustrated with Taarabt during matches.

Look at the very different reaction to Bothroyd from those players when they’re on the pitch together.

At every opportunity they’re having a word in his ear, patting him on the back when something doesn’t come off for him, and are always looking to get around him and encourage him. That tells you a lot.

So I’ve got some time for Bothroyd. As misfiring strikers with questionable attitudes go.

Ron helped out in the press room on matchdays for a number of years until he and others were told during the Briatore era that their services were no longer required.

Some of us in the press pushed for them to be reinstated and it seemed at first we had succeeded, but the guys were later replaced for good - although in any case Ron was forced to support Rangers from home because of poor health.

As well as the press room, Ron was a regular at Rangers’ training ground, where he often helped out too. In fact he started working at QPR as a steward in 1948 and performed several roles over the years.

Ron loved Rangers and was never slow to make his feelings clear – usually using only one or two words – to us after a bad result.

He would always ask me for my press passes after matches as he liked to give them to his grandchild.  He leaves two grandchildren, a daughter and his wife, Barbara.

When I started covering games, the press room often seemed a very intimidating place for a youngster starting out. Having a few friendly and soon-familiar faces like Ron’s around really helped me, and for that I’ve always been grateful.

RIP Ron.

Gianni Paladini. It’s difficult to know where to start.

My view of him isn’t favourable, to put it mildly, and some of that was reflected in a previous blog post, which can be read by clicking here.

I’ll remember him mostly as a deeply divisive character who completely transformed QPR as a club and in whose name some were willing to wage war against fellow Rangers fans or at least stand back and watch.

The Paladini era will certainly be dissected, not least when The Four-Year Plan, the documentary many will have heard about, is shown in this country.

It will astonish and no doubt anger Rangers fans and yet, in my view, it charts a period at the club which was farcical but in many ways less so than the two years prior to the Briatore-led takeover, when at times things were even worse.

As I always say about the soap opera that was QPR: it’s a 2005 thing, not a 2007 thing.

Briatore didn’t start something, he merely carried it on. But his profile was such that his nonsensical regime attracted more scrutiny and in the end it became trendy for the media to give him a deserved kicking.

Paladini and his supporters would have you believe that the club stumbling from debacle to debacle in the two years before Briatore’s arrival was the inevitable result of a lack of money and a campaign by dark forces with links to previous board members.

On both counts that’s absolute rubbish.

Paladini’s allies are also quick to talk up his supposed role in that takeover. That’s a matter for some debate.

What isn’t debatable is his role in securing vital funds for the club when he brought the Monaco-based investors on board in 2004.

That was crucial money that helped keep the club going and is often overlooked. Others put money in too and, unlike Paladini, were not paid a salary. But there’s no doubt he played a role at a hugely important time.

On a personal level, my relationship with Paladini improved even though it wasn’t all plain sailing. I was banned from covering matches at Rangers at one stage.

That ban came as part of a Paladini-led purge of people seen as sympathetic to those he ousted from the club and who, he believed, were plotting against him and QPR. They included me. 

I was told the ban would probably be lifted if I attempted to speak to Paladini to discuss the issue, which I wasn’t keen to do – although I did have one moment of weakness. It came at Southend.

Having been assured by more than one media high-flyer down the years that I was “a Premier League reporter” and should stop covering Rangers, I was deluded enough to think my ban would pave the way for Saturday trips to Arsenal and the like.

When the call came, I was given Southend v Plymouth. And on reflection that probably flattered me.

At half-time, the stadium announcer proudly revealed that X-Factor hero Chico would be singing during the interval.

As I sat there being subjected to Chico, with the east-coast wind blowing a chill through me, I did briefly think: ‘Maybe I’ll apologise to Paladini after all.’

Chico time? Tail between legs time, more like.

Plymouth were then managed by Ian Holloway – a man not best pleased with me when he left QPR but who, upon hearing of my ban from Rangers, acted with typical decency.

Maybe he then found a quiet corner of Roots Hall and burst out laughing. If so I wouldn’t blame him.

In fairness to Paladini, after the ban was lifted without any apology from me or conditions set by him, he did make a genuine effort to get along with me in the years that followed.

Unfortunately for me, this wasn’t always helpful.

I’m not much of a networker but was giving it a go in the press room at one Rangers game in an effort to secure a bit of extra work.

The person I was speaking to expressed some misgivings based on the fact that I was a QPR fan so maybe not impartial.

I told him that wouldn’t be an issue, as I had an awful relationship with the club. When asked to explain I slipped in that I’d been banned, threatened with other bans and was generally seen as an enemy of the Paladini regime.

Completely unbeknown to me, Paladini was elsewhere in the stadium having his ear bent by a well-meaning figure at the club who was suggesting he mend fences with me.

With my story of a fearless reporter and man of principle visibly impressing my would-be new freelance employer, out of the corner of my eye I could see you-know-who walking purposefully towards me.

I could hardly believe my luck. Here I was, stating my case, and as if to prove me right it was actually about to kick off. Perfect.

To my absolute disgust, Paladini embraced me like a long lost brother, telling me how much he respected me, even holding my face for crying out loud. In return I managed a false smile Tony Blair would have been proud of.

It wasn’t a one-off. Paladini remained more than civil to me during the rest of his time at Rangers, even when not best pleased with what was written about him.

In fairness to him, he showed a genuine willingness to speak to the media and an understanding of why, as chairman, he ought to maintain good relations.  

Yes, some of it was for his own self-gratifying purposes and while I wasn’t exactly his journalist of choice, he found others who portrayed him in a much more favourable light.

But while many in football will only co-operate with journalists who play their game, Paladini is not one of them. Not by a long shot.

He was often prepared to give his time knowing full well he probably wouldn’t like the end result. He wasn’t all about self-promotion when it came to the media. Far from it.

And while reluctant to oppose Briatore to his face, Paladini did raise objections to ridiculous price rises and his fellow Italian’s attitude towards QPR supporters, arguing that although he himself had received what he considered to be unfair treatment from fans, they were the lifeblood of the club and should be respected as such.

The irony of that, however, was that Briatore’s apparent disdain for the club and fans should always be seen in the context of what he inherited.

What kind of club did he find? One that was down on itself and had been purged of good QPR people because of Paladini’s assault on the fabric of the club. His so-called Italian way.

Like I said, Briatore was simply carrying on a process. It was a 2005 thing, not a 2007 thing.

Paladini is the greatest opportunist I’ve ever come across. His great gift is taking openings that come his way. He was often described by one of his boardroom enemies as “just a waiter” because of his past job working in a restaurant.

It was a term that stuck and was used by others behind his back. My response was always: “Yes, but what a waiter.”

That was the problem with many of Paladini’s foes – they too often underestimated him. He is the ultimate survivor and so will have no trouble carving a role for himself elsewhere in football, which is what I expect him to do.

What I know for sure about Paladini is that his children and grandchildren mean everything to him. So when his retirement does eventually come, it ought to be a happy one.

As well as fielding several questions about Taarabt, Warnock backed Harry Redknapp to take over from Fabio Capello as England manager.

An interesting one that, because I’ve got a feeling that if Redknapp gets the England job it might have implications for QPR.

If the FA appoint Redknapp and Rangers have exceeded expectations this season, I wouldn’t be surprised if Warnock is managing Tottenham this time next year.

For QPR, that scenario wouldn’t be as grim as it might sound.

Rangers would have had a good season, meaning they’d be very well placed for the future with funds available to continue building, leaving Warnock to manage a top club before he retires.

A lot has to fall into place for all that to happen. But like I said, it wouldn’t surprise me.

I’ll soon have much more time on my hands actually, as I’ll be waving goodbye to my main employer after 12 years.

Faced with a choice between virtual unemployment and moving to Manchester, I opted for option one for various reasons and the redundancy that once was years away and then months away is now a mere four weeks away.

It was with one eye on the future that I created the West London Sport site in the summer, having had the idea in the back of my mind for over 10 years.

It’s been stressful – to put it mildly – but has gone quite well, although the plan has always been for it to be fully up and running in the new year, when I and a couple of others I’m working with will have more time to develop it.

There’s a lot of work to do and one of the many things I need to sort out is the social media side of things, which has been a bit of a mess.

For starters, we had a problem with our original Facebook page, which we haven’t been able to update and will soon be deleting.

We have a new page which will be used from now on, so you can ‘like’ West London Sport on Facebook by clicking here. You can also follow us on Twitter by clicking here.

We also soon hope to offer video and audio content, but for various technical reasons it’s proving to be a bit problematic.

Which brings me to Adel Taarabt.

Neil Warnock is due to give his now regular pre-match press conference (they’re a Premier League requirement) on Thursday and this one could be more interesting than usual as there’s a chance Taarabt might appear alongside him.

Whether it happens, I don’t yet know. From the manager and club’s point of view it may look like they are pandering to the fuss made of Taarabt’s reaction to being substituted at Fulham, since which he has been quoted as saying he will leave QPR “for financial reasons.”

In fact, Warnock was considering bringing Taarabt to his pre-Blackburn press conference even before the Fulham game. But now it may seem like a response to recent events if he decides to do so.

From a player with a questionable attitude to somebody with an impeccable one: I’m shocked that no-one has come in for Hogan Ephraim, whose name was circulated when he (very narrowly) missed out on a place in Warnock’s 25-man squad.

I recently talked to Mick Jones about this and he was as surprised as me. I suggested to him that some Championship clubs maybe assume Ephraim would be out of their reach and likely to be wanted by one of the bigger sides, but that’s not the case as several have been invited to take him on loan and haven’t.

It looks like Crystal Palace, who along with Millwall showed some interest in him last season, may decide to take him.

But why there hasn’t been a queue of Championship clubs battling to get him I’ve no idea. Any team in that division should take Ephraim like a shot. Good player, great attitude and covers a number of positions – which in many ways hasn’t helped him.

I’d certainly rather have Ephraim in my squad than Jason Puncheon, who played at left-back in a reserve game against Tottenham this week.

Hampton & Richmond defender Dean Inman also played in the match as he’s now having the trial he was offered by Rangers in the summer but had to delay because of an ankle problem.

Inman, who is Martin Rowlands’ cousin, can play at centre-back, right-back or in midfield. Regardless of whether QPR take him it looks like he might make a career for himself in the game.

Talking of Spurs, I’ll be walking to Rangers’ game there from Loftus Road on October 30 as it’s Tiger Feet 3 – the latest sponsored walk to raise money for the QPR Tiger Cubs, a team for children with Down’s Syndrome.

The previous walks were to Watford last season and Crystal Palace the season before, with both games ending in important wins for Rangers – and blisters for me.

Tiger Feet was the brainchild of my friend James Doe, an R’s (and Harrow Borough) fan and also the creator of the hugely successful Non-League Day.

James’ idea was inspired by the fact that our friend and ex-BBC colleague – and now West London Sport blogger – Chris Charles has a daughter with Down’s.

James and Chris approached the QPR in the Community Trust, who have organised the last two walks and are now preparing the third.

Most who’ve been to White Hart Lane know all about the walk from Seven Sisters station, which I suspect I’ll never moan about again after the 30th. But it’s for a great cause.

And on the subject of great causes, this weekend the Trust are aiming to set a record for the most money raised by football supporters during a Premier League match.

Fans can donate by texting ‘QPRW12 £3’ to 70070 on Saturday.  The texts are free to send and every penny donated will go to the QPR in the Community Trust.

I’ve seen just a bit of the work the Trust CEO Andy Evans and his team do. They’re a credit to the club and I hope they set that new record.

Think of a problem club in recent years. It’s likely that those at the helm were prone to issuing these type of statements.

Luton, Wimbledon, Hearts, Liverpool, Darlington, Newcastle– you name it. In football, when the asylum gets taken over it starts issuing statements.

Bad regimes tend to produce badly advised, cringeworthy attempts to try and set the record straight from their point of view.  It’s a common characteristic.

Several clubs have been through this difficult but usually temporary spell.

Sadly, QPR have been issuing such statements on and off for six years now. That’s a very long time for a club to be so desperately lacking sensible and coherent leadership – and the previous years were pretty dismal in that respect too.

Saturday’s essay, written on behalf of the club’s owners, wasn’t nearly as horrific as some of the diatribes churned out by QPR since 2005. But it still highlighted that Rangers is a club with serious, deep-seated problems.

Massive spending (and it has been massive) by the owners, and one excellent season on the pitch, doesn’t change the fact that much is wrong at Loftus Road and has been for a long time.

What it also highlighted was something I alluded to in my last blog: that Neil Warnock was given a slap on the wrist for hinting at his frustration at not being able to sign some of his targets, and since then has been reluctant to comment.

I knew this because last month, Warnock politely told me he’d prefer not to speak to me and that this was likely to be the case for a couple of weeks.

I’ve got no problem with that. I’m not close to Warnock, don’t know him as well as I have previous Rangers managers, and am used to being in the doghouse with people at QPR. But this came completely out of the blue and, at the time, I couldn’t think of an obvious reason for it.

But the following day, I was told some of Warnock’s previous comments had not gone down at all well, and he’d been given a warning.

In a way, I can understand why. I wouldn’t be too amused by some of Warnock’s comments either. But then I wouldn’t have given any manager the kind of mandate to run the show he was handed when he took over last year. And what Warnock was promised is the key issue at the heart of all this.

Warnock is a very shrewd football man with a Gerry Francis-like understanding of his stock among QPR fans compared to the board’s, and his musings this summer have reflected that.

His words are very clever and effective. They boost his profile and mean he is taken seriously. His bosses, despite their successful backgrounds, are not.

And no wonder, when they talk about working with the manager in a “professional and confidential manner” while giving him a very public and unprofessional slapping down. Only at QPR.

Since their takeover was being negotiated in June 2007, I have never believed the current owners would be good for the club. But despite this summer’s relative lack of transfer activity, for which there are many reasons, I’ve always felt the allegation that they’re unwilling to spend is not only unjustified, but ludicrous.

The irony, though, is that Saturday’s statement was largely about their willingness to back the manager and sign players, yet does nothing to help them do that.

Another very obvious sign of the division and incoherence that prevails at QPR will only add to its reputation as a club best avoided.

Being prepared to spend is only part of it. Being able to convince good players that QPR is a stable, progressive club they should want to join is the most important bit.

And in that respect, Rangers haven’t made things any easier for themselves.

A row over bonuses from last season has been averted, but the all-too familiar spectre of a stand-off between the manager and board is hanging over QPR once again.

I’ve been told that promotion will cost the club around £10m in player bonuses.

That could be a wild exaggeration, but what I do know for sure is that a number of players were unhappy – to put it mildly – when the squad didn’t receive their bonuses in May.

A settlement was reached when it was agreed the players would receive their bonuses at a later date.

But a gulf between Warnock and the club’s owners will also need to be closed if Rangers’ preparations for the Premier League aren’t to be thrown into total chaos.

Warnock told me shortly before the end of last season that he fully expected to be nudged towards a number of Italian players this summer, but most of his targets were English-based.

For recently making public his frustration at missing out on some of those targets, Warnock angered his bosses and has since been reluctant to comment.

Rangers do look close to getting a few of his preferred signings, especially in the case of Jimmy Bullard.

But other potential deals have hit problems, including the mooted signing of Jay Bothroyd, which was shelved because of the proposed wages involved. Talks apparently resumed, and it looks like there is a fair chance the player will end up at Rangers.

DJ Campbell has also been in talks, and again the signs there are positive.

The club need – and expect – to confirm the signings of two to four players very soon, which would indicate that Warnock is getting his way.

In 12 years of covering QPR, you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve referred to a ‘source’ or ‘insider’. I hate doing that. And there have been even fewer occasions on which I’ve been talked out of doing a story by the club.

But late on Saturday night, after conversations with (here goes) club sources, I was talked out of circulating a story that Warnock’s relationship with the board was close to breaking point.

I was assured that such a story would be proved wrong within a few days, as the club would definitely complete some signings and were making progress with other possible additions.

For once, I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt, partly because I knew much of what I was told to be true.

But the situation has reached a critical stage and is, I understand, being monitored by the League Managers’ Association, which is a very significant development.

The owners have never intended to fire Warnock, but his contract states that he has full control over transfers, and according to some inside the club, there is now a feeling that this stipulation may have been breached, which would apparently entitle him to a full pay-off were he to walk away.

He made several excellent acquisitions last summer but there have been rumblings of discontent among his bosses over signings such as those of Petter Vaagen Moen, Leon Clarke and Rob Hulse.

That may have been a factor in the sea-change during the second half of last season, when Bernie Ecclestone started having more of an influence behind the scenes and Gianni Paladini’s involvement, which had been reduced, seemed to slightly increase.

It is worth pointing out though that Paladini is a staunch ally of Warnock, who was very much his choice for the manager’s job – regardless of how things were portrayed at the time.

I do believe the situation will be resolved, that Rangers will get over the line with at least a couple of signings in the next 48 hours, and that Warnock will still be in charge come August.

But I have to admit I’m less confident about that than I was this time last week.

Shittu and Pascal Chimbonda looked for all the world like short-term signings simply to get extra bodies in during the promotion run-in.

Chimbonda left the club in a huff weeks before Rangers’ announcement that he was among eight players being released now their contracts have expired, but fair play to Shittu for keeping his foot in the door.

One man who didn’t survive the cull was Josh Parker, who until fairly recently was firmly in Neil Warnock’s plans.

A number of clubs have been keeping tabs on Parker for some time – so the player won’t be short of options – but around a year ago, when there was some interest in signing him on loan, Warnock was adamant that he saw him as part of his first-team squad.

He did eventually end up having a loan spell at Northampton, which he cut short after being told he was not being selected for a game against Oxford.

When he was later loaned to Wycombe, he was still in Warnock’s thoughts; so much so the manager insisted on a recall option and would have called him back for January’s FA Cup game against Blackburn had Parker not got injured.

Those unproductive loan spells didn’t help Parker’s cause one bit, but I still think he can get a League One club – or at least a trial with one – if he knuckles down.

The importance of a successful loan has been underlined by the fact that Max Ehmer’s time at Yeovil has seen him secure a one-year extension to his QPR contract.

Much respect is due to Ehmer because he’s made his way despite some initial cynicism about him, given that he joined as a schoolboy when his father Val put money into QPR and was involved with people who were trying to take control of the club.

You can therefore imagine some of the whispers about young Max – not least because another youngster, Jack Perry, who was later released, was also taken on by the club (as an actual pro) around that time, and his father too was financially involved behind the scenes.

The decision to take on ”the German’s son”, as I once heard him angrily referred to, was one of many issues that caused a bitter dispute at board level during an infamously acrimonious period. But it has proved to the right decision.

He can play. No doubt about it. I’ve liked the look of him both in midfield and when he’s switched to right-back.

And I’m not alone. During last year’s pre-season games scouts from various clubs were asking me about him and were more than impressed.

So good luck to the guy in the future. A good player worth keeping an eye out for.

My ‘week off’ has been spent being terrorised by Lucy, a Portuguese water dog puppy who’s run me ragged during my attempts to toilet-train her and prevent my house being destroyed.

Lucy is the canine equivalent of Dominic Iorfa: entertaining to watch, with a loveable personality and absolutely blistering pace, but always in the wrong place and misses the target time after time.

Butter wouldn't melt, but she's a terror

Before settling down for a week of sleepless nights and apologising to neighbours, it was suggested to me by a colleague that I do a story about QPR planning a bid for Danny Graham.

Won’t happen, I insisted. Was I sure? Absolutely. They won’t bid for him before the end of the month.

A couple of days later, as Lucy was stampeding through my living room (I dread to think what she’ll do when I’m back at work), I noticed Sky Sports News reporting a £2.5m bid from QPR for Graham, which despite not having time to verify myself I have no doubt was true.

My incompetence didn’t stop there.

In my last blog post I suggested the Mittals might soon become more influential at Rangers – genuinely this time, as opposed to the ploy last year to placate fans and attract a heavyweight manager.

Taking a break from cleaning up puppy wee while having my hands and feet bitten to shreds, I checked Twitter and Facebook and had a few messages asking for an update on the situation.

As I was totally out of the loop, I tweeted that I knew nothing of any developments.

Unbeknown to me, in the outside world there were rumours that the Mittals had left QPR, so my reference to “developments” caused some confusion.

I attempted to clarify with a follow-up tweet, but the damage was done.

One un-amused follower – maybe now an ex-follower – made their disgust clear. The gist of his tweet was that I knew nothing. Which was absolutely right. That was supposed to be the whole point.

I often use Facebook and Twitter to link to stuff I’ve written, which people might not otherwise realise is by me. I might be a rubbish journalist and a negative so-and-so, but the common allegation that I don’t say anything new isn’t accurate, honest!

Having finally found time the previous day to circulate a story about a possible buy-out by the Mittals, I assumed an article that appeared the following morning was mine, so linked to it without really checking.

A couple of minutes later, I was back on Twitter pointing out that it wasn’t actually mine, although it was similar. No skin off my nose – just less food for Lucy this week – but further proof that I had lost the plot.

Given that, you might want to treat with due contempt my take on some of the confusion out there regarding the ownership of the club.

It’s an issue, like several others, that QPR has tied itself in knots over.

Implying last year that the popular Mittals had in some way ousted the unpopular Briatore made it difficult for them to explain Briatore’s subsequent transfer of shares to Ecclestone. So they didn’t.

Then in March, Rangers released a statement effectively confirming a report that the club were in talks with a potential buyer. That was all a bit silly.

Since then, the impression has been that Rangers are yet again up for sale and the owners want out, which isn’t really the case.

There has been some interest. I thought an Indonesian-based group who seemed seriously interested might make a formal move, but they didn’t.

Calm before yet another storm

Beyond that, the notion of an imminent sale was a bit daft. I wasn’t and am still not sure what it was all about.

I’ve been told that Briatore is particularly keen to sell his British-based business interests, but don’t know whether that’s accurate.

And while this is second-hand information because I’ve never spoken to Ecclestone since he became involved in Rangers, people who would know immediately told me that he had no interest in selling unless he received a ridiculous offer.

That was borne out by a subsequent comment by Ecclestone that he wanted £100m for the club.

In light of QPR’s statement, his words were read by many as ‘I want to sell QPR and want £100m’ when it was more along the lines of ‘no, I’m not looking to sell. Not unless it’s for £100m.’

Confused? That‘s hardly surprising. After all, it was Rangers’ own statement that fuelled the reports the club was up for sale.

This, if you remember, being the same club that took a break from the latter stages of negotiating the sale to the current owners to release a bizarre statement claiming the club wasn’t for sale. It’s never straightforward in QPR Land.

There is also the issue of who on the QPR board owns what. The individual stakes of Ecclestone and Briatore can seem a mystery, and the transfer between them fluid.

Since their takeover, I’ve always regarded their shareholding purely as a combined one. They’re a team. Who of the two owns what at any particular time is basically irrelevant.

The best way to view them isn’t as Ecclestone and Briatore, but Ecclestone/Briatore. They are one and the same. Seeing it any other way is splitting hairs.

As for the possibility of the Mittals taking control, I’d be surprised if it happened but it is at least a possibility, unlike last year when it had no substance and started as hot air generated by the pro-Paladini camp, who were keen to keep blame focused on the pantomime villain Briatore rather than their man, who they also believed would be strengthened by a Bhatia-led takeover.

I think there is still some of that going on, but there is also some substance this time around.

What this is not is a ‘boardroom battle’, the like of which was seen at Rangers in 2004 and again in 2005. Having covered both of those in depth, I can definitely say this isn’t comparable in any way.

That said, I’ve no idea where they are with the discussions they were meant to be having this week, or where Rangers are with enquiries about various players.

Having clearly misjudged the situation with Graham, only transfer story I’ve done in recent weeks was on Tottenham’s Kyle Naughton, who Rangers are trying pretty hard to get. I felt that one was advanced enough to do a story on.

Among the numerous others linked, Lee Bowyer is an interesting one because when his name first cropped up, Neil Warnock wasn’t interested in him at all and still wasn’t when I last checked.

Whether that’s changed in the last week or so, I don’t know. Often a deal for a player is done because it’s there to be done, and the idea grows on a manager the longer it‘s an option. So who knows.

Another name thrown at me on Twitter this week was Javier Saviola, who was apparently being linked with Rangers while I was introducing Lucy to worming tablets.

Those asking if I knew anything about the Saviola thing flattered me. I don’t. This blog is basically all about how little I know.

I’m pretty useless when it comes to overseas transfer stories. The only ones I’ve broken since 2007 were those of Parejo and Faurlin, and the almost signing of Sebastian Rusculleda (anyone remember him?), which collapsed at the last minute. I was a close second with Ledesma and De Carmine.

When you consider how many overseas signings Rangers have made, that’s a pretty poor return.

The way they happen and the people they involve means it’s hard for me to get there first with foreign signings.

A bummer that. And so too is having your furniture chewed to bits.

Not only is he now a friend and someone I’ve grown to respect a lot, he’s also become almost as Victor Meldrew-like as me. Anyone who knows me will know that’s quite a statement.

For those unfamiliar with his work, Ben is the sports editor of the local Times and has written a number of articles criticising the club; the latest being this week’s panning of Gianni Paladini.

I think Ben is very good at writing this kind of opinion piece and that his views are shared by many fans. 

It’s not a skill I have. This blog has been more fun than I expected, but I’m a news man. To me, getting a story is all that really matters. Anything else is secondary.

In some ways I’ve been proved wrong by the way Ben has rightly received a lot of praise for his finger-on-the-pulse articles.  

As well as praise, I’ve seen some criticism of the guy. Some of it has tended to be that he is just plain negative and has an axe to grind.

It’s only fair to set the record straight. The fact is Ben used to be criticised for being an apologist for the Paladini-led regime, so any suggestion he is negative for the sake of it is wrong.

It was always me who had a bad relationship with the club. Ben, on the other hand, offered them very sympathetic and positive press. Those who’ve only become aware of him fairly recently may not know this, so perhaps get the wrong impression of him.

The point is that while I can be dismissed as negative and an enemy of the club’s hierarchy, Ben cannot. That’s partly why people should take notice of him, and why I think he deserves respect as a reporter.

It’s easy for me, who already had a poor relationship with QPR and did not work for one newspaper, to burn bridges. It’s harder to take a stance when you’ve previously enjoyed a good relationship with people and been onto a good thing, and also have pages to fill every week, so need a club’s cooperation.

Ben deserves kudos for being willing to criticise, even though it does nothing to make his job easier. Any suggestion he has an ulterior motive is simply wrong.

As for his assessment of Paladini and the Faurlin saga, like his general views on the Rangers regime I may disagree with some specifics, but I agree with his basic point.

But while putting the boot into Paladini is both justified and in many ways a re-hash of old arguments that existed long before the Faurlin farce, the bottom line is that it is the owners of the club who are responsible.

When Paladini was in charge of QPR, he and his allies routinely lashed out at the previous board and their supposed friends throughout a very traumatic period for the club, during which good people lost their jobs and individual fans were subjected to the most incredible campaign.

My response to Paladini during all that was very simple: the buck stops with you. You can’t blame disaster upon disaster on people (mostly lifelong QPR fans) supposedly trying to undermine you. You own QPR. You kicked QPR people out so that you could do so. No excuses. You’re to blame when things go wrong.

Well, fair’s fair. The same must apply now Paladini is basically a club employee.

Criticism of him is inevitable, but make no mistake, it is the owners of QPR who are responsible. It’s they who have a duty of care. And it is they who have failed in that duty by not removing Paladini before now.

During Paladini’s era, the list of debacles QPR have been involved in – episodes that have affected the club’s reputation immeasurably – is a matter of public record and presumably something the popular Mittal family are comfortable with.

I mention the Mittals for two reasons.

The first is that it is they who have enjoyed the adoration of Rangers fans, whereas Ecclestone and Briatore have nailed their colours to the mast. One through his apathy and the latter with his unguarded distain for “fans who pay £20.”

The affection out there for the Mittals is, I believe, based largely on Amit Bhatia’s words rather than actions – ticket pricing being the prime example – and action is now required.

The second reason I mention them is that they may be soon be in a stronger position to take such action.

I never went along with the nonsense that good cop Mittal had replaced bad cop Briatore. Like details of the Faurlin transfer, it was one of several examples of QPR fans being misled.

I do believe, though, that in the near future there is a genuine possibility – just a possibility – there will now be actual change at the top. A possible outcome is that the Mittal family’s influence will be significantly increased. This time for real.

If that happens, they will need to assess several areas of the club that have been a problem for some time.

I do think the Mittals are decent and their respect for QPR is genuine. I also believe they are capable of turning Rangers into one of the best clubs in Europe – not just on the pitch but off it too.

But they cannot do so without addressing the issue of the elephant in the boardroom, which they have so far been unwilling or unable to do.

As things stand, the Mittals strengthening their position would probably lead to Paladini strengthening his.

That’s not something Mittal fans who want Paladini out will want to read, but it’s true, and is why Paladinites on various messageboards have sought to whip up support for the Mittals versus Briatore in the past.

Long before the Faurlin saga, Bhatia received correspondence from fans pleading with him and his family to end Paladini’s involvement with QPR, and drawing his attention to the reasons why. Paladini’s collaborators take great pleasure from the fact that these pleas were in vain.

And while some of Paladini’s critics will use the Faurlin hearing – the results of which suggest no personal wrongdoing on the chairman’s part – as a stick to beat him with despite not knowing the facts of the transfer, there are others who, far from using hindsight, have warned of this type of situation occurring at some stage. It seemed inevitable.

As sensational as the Faurlin case was, in many ways it changes nothing.

Paladini was not found guilty of anything, so anyone who thought he was a fit and proper chairman of QPR three months ago need not change their mind. It’s as you were.

The fine shouldn’t be a problem. Rangers have plenty of money, and most fans would regard Faurlin as worth £875,000 which, from discussions I’ve had, the QPR regime seem to feel is all that matters.

There’s also no need to worry about any damage to QPR’s good reputation. They didn’t have one.

For others, including me, as you were means believing that Paladini ought to go. The Faurlin case didn’t highlight any corruption, but it did – yet again – highlight that Rangers are a very poorly run club.

Paladini, as club chairman since 2005 and the current board’s fountain of football knowledge, is to blame for that.

In return for the adoration and respect of QPR fans, the Mittals have a responsibility to them and a duty to ensure those fans can be confident their club is run in the best possible way.

Paladini unfortunately has a track record of costing the club large amounts of money through shoddiness and incompetence, from the Gino Padula contract fiasco to a series of diabolical signings.

His continued involvement at a time when the board will expect fans to pay top-dollar during tough economic times would be an insult to people whose loyal support of the club guided it through troubled waters.

Paladini has sometimes been wrongly demonised – never more so than with regard to Ian Holloway – and his role in positive things has been overlooked because the truth would not fit with the negative portrayal of him.

But I’m afraid those examples are rare. They are also outweighed by the credit he has too-often received, even from critics, for supposedly ‘saving the club’ or arranging the 2007 takeover – a version of events his allies have pushed relentlessly for a long time, and one I’d very strongly dispute. But that’s for another day.

If Paladini is to be credited with ‘saving’ QPR, it ought to be because of the Monaco-based investment he brought in not long after becoming involved with the club in 2004. That money was absolutely crucial and something he is entitled to take credit for.

Sadly, during the following years, what was a respected club has been dragged through the mire again and again, and Paladini is more responsible for that than anyone.

His advocates may see this as unreasonably blaming him for all sorts of things simply for the sake of it. But while defending him on some issues I also have no hesitation in laying blame for others at his door. Take for example the infamous China brawl, which for me encapsulated the club’s malaise.

Not for a moment am I suggesting Paladini would condone an episode like that or be anything but sickened by it. He was. And in fact, once he calmed down that afternoon and stopped berating me for reporting the incident, I thought his response to the whole thing during the following days was magnificent – his finest hour as chairman.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that incidents like that happened in the first place because of the general climate at the club. A climate where there seemed to be no leadership, no discipline, and, frankly, no standards. For that, Paladini was responsible.

Simply put, the place was a shambles during his tenure, and for that reason many hoped – and wrongly assumed – the 2007 takeover by renowned businesspeople would do for him. It was never likely to, and it didn’t.

This is something his supporters point to as proof of his ability. I see it as proof of the owners’ lack of knowledge of QPR and football in general.

In many ways the takeover strengthened his position, and the shoddiness that plagued the club’s dealings before 2007 has still been evident since then, culminating in the Faurlin fiasco.

So the result of the Paladini years is a club that apparently views a fine not far short of £1m – the largest fine in FA history – as a vindication, and that uses as their defence the fact that they deliberately sought to mislead their own fans.  

What a sad state of affairs and what a comedown for a club once viewed by others as a benchmark.

So Ben Kosky is spot-on to say Paladini cannot be allowed to continue in his current role. I also know it wasn’t the easy option for him personally, because he has long been battling the club over the issue of access to players, and an article like that will do him no favours at all.

From my own point of view, I really hoped promotion would be an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and achieve a better relationship with the club. Three Premier League sides in the same borough ought to be a great opportunity for those clubs and the local press.

I hoped to mend fences this summer, and have a few ideas I’d like Rangers to embrace. So at this stage, I need to be criticising the powers-that-be like Akos Buzsaky needs another injury.

Tempting as it is, now Kosky’s opted for potential career suicide, to wait for them to bury him and see where that might leave me, I’m reaching for the razor blade as well. They can bury both of us together. Might as well. I’ve seen far too much of the guy lately.

Being a gentleman, and probably still more placid than me, Ben’s amicably suggested that Paladini be “sidelined”. But what would be the point of that?

That would see him keep his role as the club’s figurehead, particularly at away matches, when he is often the only director representing QPR, which itself is a sad indictment of the club.

QPR must – and easily could – do better. It’s not appropriate for Paladini to perform that role, and the need for him to be replaced in it is even greater now than before.

Rangers are not short of excellent alternatives. There are a number of QPR fans who are respected and successful in business and other areas.

Closer to home, there are people like Andy Evans, who attends every game and has done outstanding work in charge of the QPR in the Community Trust. Bhatia is the trust’s chairman, so there’s an option staring him in the face.

There are also committed Rangers fans who have helped the club in numerous ways through the years, including, incidentally, providing financial support for the aforementioned community trust.

These people would, in my view, represent the club very well and should be asked to do so as part of a new era for Rangers, in the Premier League, with people who live and breath QPR being prominent when the moneymen aren’t.

Until now, that void has been filled by Paladini. That should never have been the case.

Removing his title of sporting director was only a cosmetic, token measure. There must now be proper, meaningful change. It’s long overdue.